1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Dialogue
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Collaborative governance within natural resource management relies on dialogical forums where people can negotiate complex issues through conversations. In this paper, we investigate situations where procedural frames around these discussions are negotiated in the conversations between its participants in a corpus from five different natural resource management contexts. We present how frame discussions are initiated, how actors express that actions are not aligned with the frames, and finally, how these openings of discourse about the frames are interactively managed, maintained, and closed. We argue norms of inclusiveness, consensus, and performance shape the interaction and hamper the joint investigation of the frames, and undermine the entire justification of the collaborative processes and the core quality of dialogical conversations.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
2023-08-01
2024-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ld.00147.hal.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abma, Tineke A., Jennifer C. Greene, Ove Karlsson, Katherine Ryan, Thomas A. Schwandt, Guy A. M. Widdershoven
    2001 “Dialogue on Dialogue”. Evaluation7 (2): 164–180. 10.1177/135638900100700202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/135638900100700202 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anguelovski, Isabelle
    2011 “Understanding the Dynamics of Community Engagement of Corporations in Communities: The Iterative Relationship between Dialogue Processes and Local Protest at the Tintaya Copper Mine in Peru”. Society and Natural Resources24 (4): 384–399. 10.1080/08941920903339699
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903339699 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arias-Maldonado, Manuel
    2007 “An Imaginary Solution? The Green Defence of Deliberative Democracy”. Environmental Values16 (2): 233–252. 10.3197/096327107780474573
     https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107780474573 [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, Laura W., Jay Leighter, and John Gastil
    2009 “Communicating Trust, Community, and Process in Public Meetings: A Reflection on How Close Attention to Communication Can Contribute to the Future of Public Participation”. Journal of Public Deliberation5 (2): Article 8.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackstock, Kirsty L.
    2009 “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Incompatible Objectives at the Heart of River Basin Planning?”. Water Science and Technology59 (3): 425 – 431. 10.2166/wst.2009.879
     https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.879 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blackstock, Kirsty L., Caspian Richards
    2007 “Evaluating Stakeholder Involvement in River Basin Planning: A Scottish Case Study”. Water Policy9 (5): 493 – 512. 10.2166/wp.2007.018
     https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohm, David
    2004 On dialogue [Electronic resource]. New ed.New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203947555
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203947555 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buber, Martin
    2003 Between man and man. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203220092
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203220092 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carbaugh, Donal, David Boromisza-Habashi and Xinmei Ge
    2006 “Dialogue in cross-cultural perspective”. InAspects of intercultural dialogue, ed. byN. Aalto and E. Reuter, 27–46. Köln: SAXA Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Carbaugh, Donal, Elena V. Nuciforo, Makoto Saito, and Dong-shin Shin
    2011 “’Dialogue’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Japanese, Korean, and Russian Discourses”. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication4 (2): 87–108. 10.1080/17513057.2011.557500
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.557500 [Google Scholar]
  11. Castell, Pål
    2016 “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden”. International Planning Studies21 (4): 305–316. 10.1080/13563475.2015.1124756
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1124756 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cinque, Serena
    2015 “Collaborative Management in Wolf Licensed Hunting: The Dilemmas of Public Managers in Moving Collaboration Forward”. Wildlife Biology21 (3): 157 – 164. 10.2981/wlb.00098
     https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00098 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cinque, Serena, Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist and Camilla Sandström
    2022 “Frontline Bureaucrats in Wildlife Management: Caught in the Dilemma between Effectiveness and Responsiveness”. Environmental Policy and Governance32 (1): 17 – 28. 10.1002/eet.1956
     https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1956 [Google Scholar]
  14. Coleman, Kimberly and Marc J. Stern
    2018 “Exploring the Functions of Different Forms of Trust in Collaborative Natural Resource Management”. Society and Natural Resources31 (1): 21–38. 10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452 [Google Scholar]
  15. Connelly, Stephen and Tim Richardson
    2004 “Exclusion: The Necessary Difference between Ideal and Practical Consensus”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47 (1): 3–17. 10.1080/0964056042000189772
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000189772 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari
    (eds) 2001 Participation: The New Tyranny?London: Zed.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Curato, Nicole, John S. Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Carolyn M. Hendriks, and Simon Niemeyer
    2017 “Twelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research”. Daedalus146 (3): 28–38. 10.1162/DAED_a_00444
     https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies, Jonathan. S.
    2007 “The limits of partnership: an exit-action strategy for local democratic inclusion”. Political studies55(4): 779–800. 10.1111/j.1467‑9248.2007.00677.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00677.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Eckerd, Adam and Roy L. Heidelberg
    2020 “Administering Public Participation”. The American Review of Public Administration50 (2): 133–147. 10.1177/0275074019871368
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019871368 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ganesh, Shiv and Prue Holmes
    2011 “Positioning Intercultural Dialogue – Theories, Pragmatics, and an Agenda”. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication4 (2): 81–86. 10.1080/17513057.2011.557482
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.557482 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ganesh, Shiv, and Heather M. Zoller
    2012 “Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change”. Communication Theory22 (1): 66–91. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2011.01396.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01396.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Habermas, Jörgen
    2007 “Truth and Society: The Discursive Redemption of Factual Claims to Validity”. InTheorizing Communication: Readings across Traditions, ed. byRobert T. Craig and Heidi L. Muller, 447–457. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hallgren, Lars and Lotten Westberg
    2015 “Adaptive Management? Observations of Knowledge Coordination in the Communication Practice of Swedish Game Management”. Wildlife biology21 (3): 165–174. 10.2981/wlb.00005
     https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John and Clayman, Steven
    2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions [Electronical resource]. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318135
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  25. van den Hove, Sybille
    2000 “Participatory Approaches to Environmental Policy-Making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a Case Study”. Ecological economics33 (3): 457–472. 10.1016/S0921‑8009(99)00165‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00165-2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher
    2018 Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Second edition. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. 10.4324/9781315147949
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949 [Google Scholar]
  27. Isaacs, William N.
    2001 “Toward an Action Theory of Dialogue”. International Journal of Public Administration24 (7–8): 709–748. 10.1081/PAD‑100104771
     https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-100104771 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, Gail
    1983 “Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: Caricature versus capturing pronunciational particulars”. Tilburg papers in language and literature351.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Johansson, Johanna
    2018 “Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Forestry in the Emerging Bio-Based Economy in Europe”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability321: 9–16. 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim, Joohan and Eun J. Kim
    2008 “Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue”. Communication theory18 (1): 51–70. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2007.00313.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Létourneau, Alain
    2017 “The Bakhtin case. An apparent tension between two traditions in dialogue studies”. Language and Dialogue7 (2): 236–252. 10.1075/ld.7.2.05let
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.2.05let [Google Scholar]
  32. Linell, Per
    2014 “Interactivities, Intersubjectivities and language: On Dialogism and Phenomenology”. Language and Dialogue4 (2): 165–193. 10.1075/ld.4.2.01lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.01lin [Google Scholar]
  33. Lundholm, Cecilia and Christian Stöhr
    2014 “Stakeholder Dialogues and Shared Understanding: the Case of Co-Managing Fisheries in Sweden”. Sustainability6 (7): 4525–4536. 10.3390/su6074525
     https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074525 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lundmark, Carina and Simon Matti
    2015 “Exploring the Prospects for Deliberative Practices as a Conflict-Reducing and legitimacy-Enhancing Tool: The Case of Swedish Carnivore Management”. Wildlife Biology21(3): 147–156. 10.2981/wlb.00009
     https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00009 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mannarini, Terri and Cosimo Talò
    2013 “Evaluating public participation: Instruments and implications for citizen involvement”. Community Development44(2): 239–256. 10.1080/15575330.2012.683799
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2012.683799 [Google Scholar]
  36. Moog, Sandra, André Spicer, and Steffen Böhm
    2015 “The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council”. Journal of Business Ethics1281: 469–493. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-013-2033-3
     [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Connor, Ruth A., Jeanne L. Nel, Dirk J. Roux, Joan Leach, Lilly Lim-Camacho, Fabien Medvecky, Lorrae van Kerkhoff and Sujatha Raman
    2021 “The Role of Environmental Managers in Knowledge Co-Production: Insights from Two Case Studies”. Environmental Science and Policy1161: 188–195. 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Polk, Merritt
    2010 “Sustainability in Practice: The Interpretation of Sustainable Development in a Regional Planning Arena for Dialogue and Learning in Western Sweden”. Planning Theory and Practice11 (4): 481–497. 10.1080/14649357.2010.525363
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2010.525363 [Google Scholar]
  39. Quintin, Bradley
    2012 “A ‘Performative’ Social Movement: The Emergence of Collective Contentions within Collaborative Governance”. Space and Polity16:2, 215–232. 10.1080/13562576.2012.721504
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2012.721504 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis [Electronic resource]. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sjölander-Lindqvist, Annelie, Maria Johansson and Camilla Sandström
    2015 “Individual and Collective Responses to Large Carnivore Management: The Roles of Trust. Representation, Knowledge Spheres, Communication and Leadership”. Wildlife Biology21 (3): 175 – 185. 10.2981/wlb.00065
     https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00065 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sveriges mineralstrategi. För ett hållbart nyttjande av Sveriges mineraltillgångar som skapar tillväxt i hela landet [E-book]
    Sveriges mineralstrategi. För ett hållbart nyttjande av Sveriges mineraltillgångar som skapar tillväxt i hela landet [E-book] 2014 Available atwww.regeringen.se/sb/d/17076/a/209657
  43. Wallace, Derek
    2020 “’A Very Good Dialogue’?: The oral consideration stage in UN human rights monitoring”. Language and Dialogue10 (2): 171–193. 10.1075/ld.00065.wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00065.wal [Google Scholar]
  44. Waylen, Kerry A., Kirsty L. Blackstock and Kirsty L. Holstead
    2015 “How does Legacy Create Sticking Points for Environmental Management? Insights from Challenges to Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach”. Ecology and society20 (2): 21. 10.5751/ES‑07594‑200221
     https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07594-200221 [Google Scholar]
  45. Weigand, Edda
    2015 “Dialogue in the Stream of Life”. Language and Dialogue5 (2): 197–223. 10.1075/ld.5.2.01wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.2.01wei [Google Scholar]
  46. Wesselink, Anna, Jouni Paavola, Oliver Fritsch, and Ortwin Renn
    2011 “Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners’ Perspectives”. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space43(11): 2688–2704. 10.1068/a44161
     https://doi.org/10.1068/a44161 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wierzbicka, Anna
    2006 “The Concept of ‘Dialogue’ in Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Perspective”. Discourse Studies8(5): 675–703. 10.1177/1461445606067334
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606067334 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
Loading
“I don’t know if we should have that discussion now”
Language and Dialogue 13, 200 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00147.hal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collaborative process; dialogue; natural resource management; negotiation; procedural frame

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error